pro

name

pro

description

Orchestrate high-context reviews by sending a scoped repo context packet to Extended Pro in the Codex in-app browser, waiting for its answer, and reconciling the answer against current local repo, PR, diff, and test state. Use when the user asks to use /pro, Extended Pro, pro review, plan hardening, implementation review, PR/code-review comment resolution, eval/reporting methodology review, or asks for an external second-pass review before coding or shipping.

Pro Review Orchestration

Use this skill to ask Extended Pro for a scoped review, then verify and reconcile its answer before taking action.

Non-Negotiables

• Use $browser-use:browser for the Pro interaction when it is available.
• Before any Pro browser action, read and follow the Browser Use skill, initialize browser-client through the Node REPL with the iab backend, and interact with the Codex in-app browser through that runtime.
• Do not use Computer Use, standalone Playwright MCP/browser sessions, shell-launched Playwright, macOS open, or any external browser automation path for the Pro interaction.
• The only Playwright-style calls allowed are the tab.playwright.* APIs exposed by Browser Use after the iab runtime is initialized.
• Prefer Extended Pro. Verify the visible model picker when possible.
• Do not blindly accept Pro output. Compare it to current local files, live PR state, tests, and repo patterns.
• If Pro raises architecture or product tradeoffs, ask the user before implementing those changes.
• Preserve traceability by summarizing the Pro prompt and response in the thread. Save a temporary artifact only when it is useful for a long or high-stakes review.

If Browser Use or its required Node REPL runtime is unavailable after following Browser Use troubleshooting, say that the skill is blocked instead of substituting another browser mechanism.

Workflow

1. Define the review target.

   • Identify whether this is plan hardening, implementation review, PR/code-review comment resolution, or eval/reporting methodology review.
   • Write the exact decision Pro is being asked to review.

2. Build a scoped context packet from local and live state.

   • Gather branch name, base branch, PR number or URL if any, and relevant issue links.
   • Gather the diff, changed-file list, key changed files, plan docs, test results, known failures, and open questions.
   • Include repo-specific constraints, existing patterns, and commands already run.
   • Redact secrets, tokens, credentials, private customer data, and unrelated large files.
   • Keep the packet scoped: include enough evidence for Pro to reason, but do not paste the whole repo.

3. Select the prompt template.

   • Use "Plan Hardening" for strategy, phases, sequencing, and missing decisions.
   • Use "Implementation Review" for code diffs, tests, edge cases, and ship readiness.
   • Use "PR / Code-Review Comment Resolution" for resolved review threads or CodeRabbit cleanup.
   • Use "Eval / Reporting Methodology" for metrics, comparability, reporting validity, and recommendation criteria.

4. Submit through the Codex browser.

   • Use a Pro thread specified by the user when provided.
   • Otherwise prefer reusing the existing Pro thread for the same repo or workstream when it preserves useful context.
   • Start a new Pro thread when the review target is unrelated, the prior thread is stale/noisy, or the user asks for a clean review.
   • When reusing a thread, briefly restate the current decision, what changed since the last review, and which prior assumptions should still apply.
   • Open or reuse the Codex in-app browser through Browser Use with the iab backend.
   • Confirm Extended Pro in the visible model picker when possible.
   • Send the context packet and selected prompt.

5. Wait patiently.

   • Poll the browser response until completion.
   • Do not give up just because it takes 10-15 minutes.
   • If the browser is interrupted or authentication is required, report the specific blocker and wait for user direction.

6. Reconcile the response.

   • Verify each Pro claim against current files, diff, PR state, tests, and repo conventions.
   • Classify each actionable item as FIX, DEFER, DISMISS, or QUESTION.
   • For FIX, implement only when the change is clearly within scope and does not require product or architecture approval.
   • For DEFER, explain why it is outside the current scope or better handled later.
   • For DISMISS, state the concrete evidence that makes the feedback incorrect or already handled.
   • For QUESTION, ask the user a direct question before proceeding.

7. Report back.

   • Include Pro's overall result: SIGNED OFF or BLOCKED.
   • Summarize required changes, risks, and tests.
   • Note what was implemented, deferred, dismissed, or left as a question.
   • Include the verification commands run locally.

Output Contract For Pro

Ask Pro to respond in this shape:

Verdict: SIGNED OFF | BLOCKED

Required changes:
- ...

Risks:
- ...

Tests or verification:
- ...

Reasoning notes:
- ...

SIGNED OFF means Pro sees no blocking issue for the stated decision. BLOCKED means Pro found at least one required change or unresolved question that should stop the decision.

Prompt Templates

Plan Hardening

You are Extended Pro reviewing this plan before implementation.

Decision to review:
[exact decision]

Context packet:
[branch, PR/issue links, plan docs, relevant repo constraints, open questions]

Please answer using the required output contract:
- Verdict: SIGNED OFF or BLOCKED
- Required changes
- Risks
- Tests or verification
- Reasoning notes

Focus on whether the plan actually reaches the stated workflow goal, which decisions are missing, and which assumptions are weak.

Implementation Review

You are Extended Pro reviewing this implementation for ship readiness.

Decision to review:
[exact decision]

Context packet:
[branch, PR/issue links, diff summary, changed files, key code snippets, tests run, known failures, repo patterns]

Please answer using the required output contract:
- Verdict: SIGNED OFF or BLOCKED
- Required changes
- Risks
- Tests or verification
- Reasoning notes

Focus on correctness, edge cases, regressions, missing tests, and whether the diff is shippable for the stated scope.

PR / Code-Review Comment Resolution

You are Extended Pro reviewing whether PR/code-review comments were resolved correctly.

Decision to review:
[exact decision]

Context packet:
[PR URL, branch, review comments, responses/fixes, relevant diffs, tests run, unresolved questions]

Please answer using the required output contract:
- Verdict: SIGNED OFF or BLOCKED
- Required changes
- Risks
- Tests or verification
- Reasoning notes

Focus on whether any response or fix is weak, incomplete, inconsistent with the repo, or likely to fail review.

Eval / Reporting Methodology

You are Extended Pro reviewing this evaluation or reporting methodology.

Decision to review:
[exact decision]

Context packet:
[metrics, datasets or reports, methodology, assumptions, comparison criteria, known limitations, relevant code or queries]

Please answer using the required output contract:
- Verdict: SIGNED OFF or BLOCKED
- Required changes
- Risks
- Tests or verification
- Reasoning notes

Focus on whether the metrics are comparable enough to support the recommendation, which confounders remain, and what evidence is missing.

Reconciliation Report Shape

After reconciling Pro's answer, report in this format:

Pro verdict: SIGNED OFF | BLOCKED

Reconciled actions:
- FIX: ...
- DEFER: ...
- DISMISS: ...
- QUESTION: ...

Local verification:
- ...

Traceability:
- Prompt summary: ...
- Response summary: ...